Thursday, September 29, 2016

The first successful override of a veto by President Obama
has occurred, and is much more than a footnote.

For Democrats, it is an alarum to the prospect of their party
failing to win back control of the U.S. senate. This would be
equally a warning whether or not their nominee, Hillary
Clinton, wins the presidency in November. If she does win,
but does not control the senate, she is likely to face stalemate
her entire term, because so many more incumbent liberal
senate seats than conservative seats will be up for re-election
(thus favoring GOP control of that body) in 2018. If she does
not win against Donald Trump, the period of 2017-19 would
likely resemble 2009-2011 when the Democrats had regained the
White House and controlled both houses of Congress (resulting
in, among other matters, the passage of Obamacare). Only this
time, the conservatives would be in charge.

For Republicans, the override is a trumpet call to protect their
majorities and Congress, and means that the GOP leadership
is now emboldened to block more of the policies of the Obama
administration they oppose. Many conservatives have attacked
Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
failing to do just this, but now (just before the election) the
Republican congressional leadership can point to a success.

The specific issue arising from the legislation is of less
immediate consequence than the unprecedented override itself.
For once, the GOP leadership put their Democratic colleagues
in a bind --- they simply could not be seen as preventing 9/11
families from seeking legal redress from Saudi Arabia. It would
have been a PR disaster for the liberal party in the final days of
the 2016 campaign. Since there are legitimate controversies in
the bill, President Obama might have avoided the override by
working with the GOP leadership before the legislation passed,
but he has become so accustomed to congressional Democrats
doing his bidding in the past, and he is so politically isolated,
that he forgot or chose to ignore that the first rule in politics is
survival. Having to choose between a lame duck president or
defeat in November, it was not a difficult choice for most
Democrats. And now, the override genie is out of the political
bottle.

If you are Democrat rooting for Hillary Clinton or a Republican
rooting for Donald Trump or an independent worried about
stalemate, the override of the president’s veto is equally, but for
different reasons, a wake-up call that beginning in 2017 it won’t
likely to be political business as usual.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

To understand why Donald Trump probably won the first TV
debate, it is necessary to revisit comments I made several
days ago about the existence of two American English
languages and those who speak them.

I contended that one of those languages is spoken by an
American “establishment” that includes well-educated and
self-styled “sophisticated” men and women with political
views across the board, left, center and right. This is a social
aristocracy that is, as it is very American, not inherited by
money or class, but its culturally transmitted by education,
occupation and personal preference. The other language,
which employs the same vocabulary and syntax, is spoken by
a large number of men and women usually with less education,
often (but not always) lower-paying work, and their own set of
cultural preferences.

Each group is aware of the other, but there is relatively little
interaction between them other than when they must transact
perfunctory business, services and other daily contact with each
other.

Hillary Clinton is the 2016 representative of the former, although
those who are conservative and others who are more radical do
not necessarily like her or plan to vote for her. Donald Trump is
the representative of the latter, although those who are liberal or
very conservative do not necessarily like him or plan to vote for
him. Moreover, while Mrs. Clinton was born in her group, Mr.
Trump was not.

Donald Trump was born into wealth, privilege, private education
and high culture. But his business life which has absorbed him
most of his adult life has brought him into constant and close
contact with those who worked for him in the construction
business. According to those who know him best, Mr. Trump was
not a distant uninvolved boss, but like so many who are very
successful, was one who mixed freely with his workers and, very
importantly, listened to what they told him. As a result, he learned
not only their language, but also gained an understanding of what
was important to them.

It is their language he has been speaking in the 2016 campaign, and
their concerns he has tried to address --- and that is why, in my
opinion, the so-called educated and cultured class, even those who
are traditionally Republican and conservative, have failed to
understand his success in the 2016 primary/caucus nomination
campaign. They are, in the savvy words of a woman I know, tone deaf
to the language of those who speak the “other” American English.

In the first debate, Hillary Clinton looked and spoke well. I thought
she outperformed expectations, and most of those, including
Republicans, who speak the first kind of English thought she won the
debate. They also found Donald Trump, as they almost always have,
to be crude, ill-informed and inappropriate.

Yet almost all of the post-debate polls (unscientific, but reflecting
their audiences or readership) found that the majority favored Mr.
Trump as the winner. When you consider that these polls include
such liberal and very pro-Clinton publications as Slate, MSNBC
and Time, this is a surprise. Those who write for these and many
other liberal media outlets are predictably saying that Mrs. Clinton
won the debate --- but how does one account for these contrary poll
results, even conceding their unscientific basis? (Conservatives
rarely if ever go to liberal sites.)

I thought Mr Trump’s debate performance was uneven, restrained,
occasionally bombastic, but mostly on a substantive message of
hopeful change --- and he spoke in the language of
non-establishment Americans. I thought Mrs. Clinton’s debate
performance was well-prepared, self-assured and aggressive (all
positives) --- but she spoke in the language of the establishment.

Ronald Reagan was a movie star governor who spoke in a
non-establishment language. Not only Democrats, but many
Republicans did not take him seriously. Walter Mondale was a
career politician who was smart, witty and well-informed, and
he spoke the establishment language with almost perfect pitch.
He seemed clearly to out-debate Mr. Reagan in their first debate,
and he openly declared that he was going to raise taxes and
increase the role of government if he became president. Large
numbers of working class Democrats then voted for Mr. Reagan
who won in an historic landslide.

I might be wrong about this, but I think the hard evidence of the
2016 campaign so far supports my argument. We will know for
sure in just about a month from now, and extraordinary events,
domestic or international, could intervene to change the course
of this campaign. There are also two more debates ahead.

Of the campaign messages, which is the most hopeful and
appealing: “Make America Great Again,” “I’m With Her” or
“Vote For Neither”?

This presidential race continues to surprise and confound.
Only the voters can bring it to closure.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Conventional wisdom has it that the imminent series of threeTV debates between Democratic presidential nominee HillaryClinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump will likely bepivotal in the election contest that will conclude a month later.

As a chronic contrarian, I suspect that expectations on both sides are exaggerated.

The most important element in a televised presidential debateis visual, not verbal.

That is why John Kennedy in 1960 in the first TV presidential debate ever defeated Richard Nixon. Most who heard thatdebate only n the radio thought that Nixon had won. But Nixon’sappearance and visual manner enabled the glamorous Kennedyto be the winner for those who watched the debate on TV.

Three famous “blunders” in TV debates in later years were momentarily sensational, but were not electorally fatal. GeraldFord mischaracterized the communist Eastern European bloc inhis debate with Jimmy Carter, but his poll numbers kept risingafter the debate. His eventual loss was primarily assigned to hispardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon. In his first debate withWalter Mondale, Ronald Reagan appeared uncertain and confused, but he recovered sufficiently in the next debate todefeat Mondale in a landslide. Mitt Romney, by all accounts, clearly outperformed Barack Obama in their first TV debate, but did not win the election.

Conventional wisdom also has it that Mrs. Clinton will outperformMr. Trump in their upcoming debates. That expectation is based onthe fact that she has much more public policy experience and factual knowledge than he does. If the debates were to be decidedon solely that verbal basis, it might be a fair anticipation. But Donald Trump faced 16 primary/caucus opponents who not onlyhad much more public policy “knowledge” than he did (and someof them were also exceedingly good debaters), and yet he won thenomination with relative ease.

Some observers suggest that while Trump was effective in debateagainst multiple opponents, it will be a different story when he has only one opponent facing him. Perhaps that is so, but perhapsmore likely will be that having only one opponent who is HillaryClinton will work to his advantage, particularly if the HillaryClinton who appears on the TV screen is the person she has beenperceived as in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

Newt Gingrich has publicly asserted that Donald Trump is the best political debater today. Since he is a Trump partisan, thisassertion needs to be taken with caution, but Mr. Gingrich is thereigning expert on the subject, partisanship aside. In my opinion,the former speaker is the best political debater I have seen, andI cite his performance in his own presidential run in 2012 asevidence. Mr. Gingrich contends that Donald Trump’s debateskill is unconventional, almost entirely intuitive, and inevitablyuncanny. If this is so, a lot of expectations will be upset in thefirst Clinton-Trump debate.

Mrs. Clinton, unlike Mr. Trump, will be carefully prepared forher debates with her opponent. She will have gone through weeksof rehearsals with stand-ins against her. She will have “gotcha”ripostes ready, and pre-planned provocations to unnerve thefirst-time candidate running against her. (Mr. Trump, as we allknow by now, is quite capable of saying something outlandish.)She will be superbly ready for a conventional debate, and if it turns out to be one, she could come away with renewed enthusiasm and momentum from the voters.

“Where’s the beef?” is perhaps the most famous line to come froma televised presidential nomination debate. It was considered,
especially by the “sophisticated” media of its time, a mortal blow to the opponent (Gary Hart) of the man (Walter Mondale) who spoke it. In fact, Mr. Mondale went on to win his party’s nomination. In
November, however, after openly declaring he would raise taxes,he suffered the worst presidential election defeat in modern history.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The polls, for whatever they are worth to the discussion of thestate of the presidential election, are beginning to signal thatRepublican nominee Donald Trump is pulling ahead of hisDemocratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

As I have suggested consistently, the polls are not very accuratethis cycle, and will remain so until just before the election.That observation holds no matter who is ahead in the polls,but might be especially so if what I and others contend is true,that is, that most polls underestimate Mr. Trump’s likely (new) voters (LNVs).

One of the most confirming signs of Mr. Trump’s remarkable rise in the polls over the past 3-4 weeks is the commentary of Nate Silver, the respected liberal pollster who so accurately forecast the 2012 presidential election. He is, of course, hedging his bets with seven weeks to go (during which time
every pundit and pollster would concede is long enough for any momentum to be reversed), but he is warning that the race is not tightening in Mrs. Clinton’s favor (as some in the mediahave very recently alleged.

Much expectation now turns to the imminent first debate. I think it is fair to say that most Democrats and even manyRepublican do not anticipate that Mr. Trump will do well in this debate against Mrs. Clinton (who has many more years ofpublic policy experience than her opponent). Lower expectationsmight help Mr. Trump a bit, but if he blunders, it could turn themomentum back to his opponent.

On the other hand, an unexpected poor performance by Mrs.Clinton might be a very serious blow to her prospects.

History cautions us about debates, however. Gerald Ford’s “Eastern Europe” blunder in 1976 did not halt his comeback
momentum (which did fall short), and Mitt Romney’s clear triumph in his first debate with President Obama in 2012 gave him a short-term rise in the polls, but did not take him to victory.

Most of the old model indicators, in fact, seem suspended thispolitical cycle. We are passing through one of the mostunorthodox national elections in modern history.

Time is beginning to run out, and in the closing days of anational campaign, it seems to go more and more quickly.
History has a momentum of its own.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

It is a relatively recent American journalistic tradition tomake the initials of the U.S. president a shorthand form inmentioning the chief executive.

Teddy Roosevelt (TR) was perhaps among the earlier examples,followed by his cousin Franklin (FDR), Harry Truman (HST),Dwight Eisenhower (DDE), John Kennedy (JFK), LyndonJohnson (LBJ), and George Bush, the son (W). Not all recentpresidents received this treatment, including Calvin Coolidge,Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon (although RMN occasionallyappeared), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan
(sometimes RR) , Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama. George Bush, the father (HW), received the treatment after his presidency to distinguish him from his son.

In 2017, with a new president, it appears that the practice willbe revived, no matter who wins. Already, Hillary Clinton (HRC)is in common use, and I think, should he win, Donald Trump will often be named as DJT, although a more unprecedented(non-initialed) shorthand (“The Donald”) has been more in use until now.

We take these shorthand devices for granted because we have
read or heard them so often, but it is curious how suddenly they
appear and come into widespread use.

This is one of the least substantive aspects of a presidentialcampaign. No public policy issues are involved. No partisanmatters are at stake. But it is interesting how the initials, serving as acronyms, often last long beyond the careers and lifetimes of the persons they are meant to describe.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

POLLS SAY PRESIDENTIAL RACE IS TIEDVirtually every national poll is now showing dramatic gainsfor Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Severalshow him leading Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by afew points, others show the race is tied, and a few show Clintonleading but by a significantly smaller margin than she held onlytwo weeks before. These polls reflect the anticipated popularvote for president. Many observers, however, contend that theliberal candidate still has an advantage in the all-importantelectoral college composed of 538 electors, chosen by each state,and who actually elect the president in a formal vote in mid-December in Washington, DC. A new Reuters poll, however,indicates that Mr. Trump is now tied with Mrs. Clinton in theelectoral college. Other pollsters have acknowledged the race isnotably tightening in most of the so-called battleground states,that is, those states where the outcome remains to be uncertain.Some observers, including The Prairie Editor, have suggested that no matter the numbers in most polls they are under-measuring a large (but unspecified) number of likely new voters (LNVs) of all ages who previously have not voted, but
are motivated this cycle to cast a vote for president. These “mutineers” or LNVs, The Prairie Editor further suggests, are angry and frustrated with the political establishments, and might tend to vote for Mr. Trump in November. In any case,with less than two months to go, the contest outcome is as
unpredictable as ever. Lest conservatives become too giddy withthese poll numbers, The Prairie Editor cautions that another swing or two in favor of one of the nominees is probably likely.

WHO WILL CONTROL THE U.S. SENATE?With the U.S. presidential race tightening, political observers andparty leaders are asking how the presidential campaign will affectdown-ballot races, including particularly U.S. house and senatecontests. Historically, landslide elections have helped down-ballotcandidates of the winning party, but the results have seemedmore to reflect local political conditions and the relative quality of the local candidates. Further, there has long existed a pattern of incumbents winning re-election. Race-by-race polls in 2016support this pattern, particularly in the U.S. house. Republicanscurrently control that body by a wide margin and, althoughexpected to see a small net loss, are not expected to see theirmajority overturned. The U.S. senate races, on the other hand,give the Democrats a serious opportunity to take control back.More than twice as many GOP-held than Democratic-held seatsare up for re-election in 2016. Virtually all liberal incumbents andmost conservative incumbents seem likely to return to the nextCongress, but some GOP senators are in competitive races, Thereare also a number of open seats this cycle, and one of them, Nevada, is the best opportunity for a Republican pick-up. On the other hand, currently-held GOP seats in Illinois, Wisconsin, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Missouri, current polls indicate, could be lost. Three races, in Ohio, Florida and Arizona now seem clearly favor their conservative candidates. One Democratic seat, in Colorado, was originally thought to be vulnerable, but so far this has not materialized in poll surveys.

Something to remember, however, is that congressional races, especially senate ones, occasionally change dramatically in the closing weeks of a campaign. There always seems to be one or more surprises on election night.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Almost all published public opinion polls have shownsignificant improvement for Republican nominee DonaldTrump in the past ten days or so. Does this mean that these polls are now accurate?

Not at all. I have argued that most, if not all, public pollsare flawed this cycle not only because of technical deficiencies and some pollster pollster bias, but also becausethere is a “mutiny of the masses” this particular year whichis aimed at, among other targets, polling. I think there is quitea bit of evidence that during the primary/caucus campaign many voters who favored Bernie Sanders and Donald Trumpdecided that they were not going to be successfully polled.

With a potentially significant number of disaffected voters on both the left and the right, there is some probability that most public polls are still not giving us a true picture of votersentiment.

This could change. Most polls become much more accuratejust before election day (when there are much fewer “undecided” voters --- and when pollsters take extra stepsnot to be embarrassed a few days later when the votes arecounted).

But the basic problem remains. If some pollsters get it right this cycle while many others get it wrong, we will want to know what it was they did to reach the mutineers and measurewhat they were going to do.

Monday, September 12, 2016

President Grover Cleveland has been mostly forgotten by
history, but he did do a few things as president that had not
been done before.

His major footnote in U.S. history is that he is the only person
who was elected president, lost re-election, and came back to
be re-elected four years later.

He was a Democrat during a half century era when most U.S.
presidents were Republican. In fact, between 1860 and 1912 he
was the only Democrat to be elected to the Oval Office.

But there was at least one other noteworthy distinction about
Grover Cleveland when he was president.

Soon after he took office for the second time in 1893, Mr.
Cleveland noticed a bump on the roof of his mouth that was
getting larger and larger. He was, as is well-known, a heavy
cigar smoker. Seeking medical advice, he was informed that he
had a tumor that had to be removed as soon as possible.
Worrying that news of his diagnosis would shock the nation
and the stock market, he arranged to take a “fishing trip” on
the private yacht “Oneida” for four days, with an itinerary of
New York City to Cape Cod.

The yacht, with six of the top surgeons of the day, actually
anchored off Long Island, and using anaesthetic, the surgeons
performed risky and, for that time, fairly unprecedented
techniques for removal of the tumor. Mr. Cleveland had a
trademark bushy moustache, and the surgeons were able to
preserve it during the operation. Afterwards, the moustache
successfully hid any visible evidence of the cancer surgery.

It turned out to be the first presidential medical cover-up in
modern history. The Cleveland White House denied all rumors
and even countered a published story about the cancer by
smearing the reputation of the enterprising reporter who had
uncovered it. That reporter’s reputation was only restored
almost 20 years later, after Mr. Cleveland had died, when one
of the surgeons came forward with the true story.

A quarter of a century later, President Woodrow Wilson
suffered a stroke that permanently incapacitated him, but it was
kept a secret while Mrs.Wilson, in effect, ran the government.
Twenty years later, White House physicians kept the news that
President Franklin Roosevelt was dying from the public, and
only the timing of his death just after his fourth inauguration
kept the previous vice president, Henry Wallace, an admirer of
Russian dictator Joseph Stalin, from taking power.

Fifteen years later, John Kennedy became president although
he knew he had Addison’s Disease, a then-fatal condition that
would soon take his life. Like so many matters in the Kennedy
administration, it was kept a secret. Twenty-five years later,
President Reagan had an operation for cancer while in office,
but the condition was not named.

These stories of secrecy about presidential medical conditions
are especially relevant this year when the two major party
nominees are about 70 years old, and one of them is showing
chronic signs of physical distress.

As the son of a physician, however, I think the current news
preoccupation with Hillary Clinton’s health is more sensational
than disqualifying. Her doctors now concede that she has
“walking” pneumonia, a serious but not life-threatening
condition. Her fainting at a New York City event recently is
most disturbing for the fact that her attending physicians
allowed her in public when she should have been resting. In the
case of any senior citizen over 60, even mild pneumonia can
become much more serious if not properly cared for --- and that
means lots of rest in addition to medication.

To be fair to Mrs. Clinton, she is a major party nominee for
president of the United States, and it is understandable that she
wants to appear in public, especially since her opponents are
making her health an issue. Her physicians and her staff,
however, have an obligation to protect her just as much as the
Secret Service does. No reasonable person could object to her
taking several days off to recuperate.

Her opponents are not to be blamed for raising the issue. They
have been encouraged to do so by that long-standing political
temptation for secrecy being indulged by the Clinton campaign,
something that goes back to that “fishing trip” on a yacht in 1893
(anchored, ironically, not that far from Mrs. Clinton’s current
home in Chappaqua, NY).

President Cleveland got away with avoiding transparency, as did
several presidents who succeeded him, because there was no
internet, social media and search engines. Those days are over.

If the Clinton campaign decides now to be transparent, the
voters can turn to the most pressing issues of the presidential
contest. Otherwise, she will give her opponents an irretrievable
gift, and perhaps, as well, the election.

Friday, September 9, 2016

It is a very human habit to try to measure as much as wecan. Until relatively very recently, we have assumed that ourmeasurements were true and useful. Measuring, after all, is
practical.

Then along came the physicist Werner Karl Heisenberg, and hisnow legendary “uncertainty principle” that demonstrated that our measurements, especially of very small matters, were not at all certain and true.

Nevertheless, even if they were not exact or certain, our measurements remained presumably useful. After all, we usedthem to construct buildings, highways, and machines; farm fieldsand sell goods and services. We also devised a very special
measurement, conceded to be inexact, but which we neverthelessassumed to be useful or accurate. That special measurement,employed particularly in democratic capitalist societies, waspolling. Most specifically, we have seen polling as an adjunct ofthe election process rise to almost an obsession.

Like a narcotic drug, political polls now addict most politicaljournalists, campaign operatives and heavy observers.

In its infancy, U.S. political polling made some historic errors.There was the primitive Liberty Magazine poll in 1936 which wassubsequently promoted as an accurate prediction of incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt’s imminent landslide defeat byKansas Governor Alf Landon in 1936. Roosevelt subsequently
won one of the largest landslide vistories in history. Twelve years
later, the two major national U.S. polls predicted a decisive victory
for New York Governor Thomas Dewey over President Harry
Truman. Truman then won by a huge margin in 1948.

Since that time, of course, we have been told that political polling has become a science. There is always a conceded margin of error,but properly done polls, we are also told, are scientifically accurate,with the caveat that they are accurate only at the moment time they are taken.

For several decades, these assumptions seemed to be true, withvery occasional exceptions. But then, in the past few decades, asmyriads of polls, “respectable” or not were created and conducted,the rare “wrong” poll became more and more commonplace.Even as the polls were more and more in error, the political class,including the media, became more and more dependent on them ---to the point of the present addiction.

In 2016, with a grass roots uprising I have named the “mutiny of the masses,” I think we are approaching a critical mass of politicalpoll credibility. The reasons for this are both technological andpsychological. Door-to-door polling has become too expensive, andlandline telephone polling no longer reaches a meaningful group ofvoters, as as well as seems too intimidating. Robo-calling and online
polling, on the other hand, are not personal enough. Heisenberg
lives again! The measurer unintentionally (or sometimes, intentionally) alters what (or who) is being measured.

With two months to go, I contend that most polls do not accuratelyor usefully measure the presidential race (especially by the standards of past cycles). I do agree that, as we get very close toelection day, the polls will become more and more accurate, but ifthe presidential contest is very close, the polls might not predict thewinner.

Ask former President Alf Landon and former President ThomasDewey, and their supporters, how that will feel.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The electoral college superstate of “Minnewisowa” (first named by me in 2004) is suddenly in play in the 2016 presidential contest.

This superstate, composed of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa,has a tradition of voting as a bloc, consists of 26 electoral votes,and shares (in addition to adjoining location) many demographiccharacteristics.

In 2008 and 2012, Minnewisowa voted all its electoral votes forBarack Obama, supported by strong popular vote margins for theDemocratic ticket.

Initially, it appeared that would be repeated in 2016, but recentindications are that Iowa is leaning to Republican nominee Donald Trump, Wisconsin has become very competitive, and onlyMinnesota seems now secure for Democratic nominee HillaryClinton.

In spite of the controversies surrounding Mr. Trump, his successin Iowa can be attributed to the united effort by the Iowa GOParound his candidacy, Long-time and popular Governor TerryBranstad, and both GOP U.S. senators, Chuck Grassley (runningfor re-election) and Joni Ernst are strongly supporting the top ofthe GOP ticket, something which has not yet happened in some other battleground states across the country.

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker (previously a competitor toMr. Trump in the presidential nominating contest) and Speaker ofthe House Paul Ryan (and Wisconsin congressman) have endorsed the GOP ticket much more cautiously, but are working very hard to re-elect Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson and several other GOP
congressional incumbents in 2016. The governor’s politicalorganization and the speaker’s popularity, combined with Mr.Trump’s frequent campaign stops in the state, are making theBadger State probably more competitive than it has been in manypresidential campaign cycles.

Only in Minnesota, which has no statewide Republican officeholders, and a weak GOP state party organization, doesMr. Trump trail Mrs. Clinton significantly. Nonetheless, theRepublican ticket appears strong in outstate Minnesota,particularly in congressional districts 6, 7 and 8. In MN-8,a blue collar area in northeastern Minnesota, Mrs. Clinton,according to private polls, is reportedly trailing Mr. Trumpand endangering the re-election of the incumbent DFL(Democratic) congressman (who had previously endorsedBernie Sanders in the state caucus). In In MN-7, the incumbent DFL congressman is so conservative that Trump’s popularitythere does not endanger his re-election.

Since both Iowa and Wisconsin both voted Democratic in 2008 and 2012, a Trump victory in one or both of them would notablyenhance his path to victory in November, especially if they were added to victories in Michigan, Ohio and/or Pennsylvania where Mr. Trump’s campaign currently appears to be unusually strong (and where Mr. Obama won all their electoral votes in 2008 and 2012).

With 60 days to go until election day, however, Mrs. Clinton still leads in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well asin several other national battleground states. The race remainshers, unless as happened in 2008, she throws it away.

Monday, September 5, 2016

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CHANGESMULTIPLY DRAMATICALLY
Within three months in the second half of 2016, a notable
number of abrupt international political changes will take place.
Some of these have already happened.

A few days ago, the left-wing president of Brazil was removed
from office for corruption following her earlier impeachment.
She has been replaced by a conservative. Also in South America,
growing demonstrations are occurring in Venezuela, most of them
demanding the removal from office of controversial President
Nicolas Maduro, the far left successor to Hugo Chavez the
authoritarian anti-American Venezuelan leader who died in office.
The socialist regime has been on the verge of collapse as shortages
of food, electricity and consumer goods have risen dramatically.

In Europe, Spain faces its third national election within a year, as
its parliament gave a vote of no-confidence to Prime Minister Mariano
Rajoy who, for the third time failed to form a coalition government.
Two populist parties, one on the left and the other on the right, have
recently won significant numbers of seats in the parliament, and
are stalemating Spanish politics. On October 2, Austria will hold a
supreme court-mandated re-run of the final round of its presidential
election (following the original vote in June that was thrown out for
irregularities}. The far right candidate is now favored to win, and
would be the first far right chief of state elected in 21st century
Europe. On the same day, Hungary will hold a referendum on the
country’s hardline anti-immigration policies favored by its
conservative government. The vote is widely expected to support
the ruling party’s stand. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel
and her party suffered a crushing defeat in a state election, coming
in third behind the socialists and a new populist anti-immigration
party. Mrs. Merkel’s liberal pro-immigration policies have caused
her personal popularity to fall precipitously, and have sparked
protests throughout Germany. National elections in The Netherlands
are not scheduled until March, 2017, and in France until April, 2017,
but nationalist, conservative and anti-immigration parties are very
strong in polls in both countries now ruled by liberal-socialist parties.
Great Britain has a new conservative prime minister to coordinate
the withdrawal of the U.K. from the European Union following the
Brexit vote in a recent national referendum. Economic woes continue
to plague Italy, Greece and Portugal, and an aborted coup in Turkey
has provoked an authoritarian response from controversial President
Erdogan against the press, the military and his civilian opponents.

In Asia, the Uzbekistani dictator Islam Karimov has died, and he left
no successor. North Korea, Philippines, and the South China Sea area
continue to be volatile hot spots.

U.S. PRESIDENTIAL POLLS TIGHTEN
Although Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton held large and growing
leads in published polls only days ago, the presidential contest has
tightened one more time as Republican nominee Donald Trump has
pulled ahead in two major polls, and to a virtual tie or significantly
closer in most other polls. This development followed a shake-up in
the Trump campaign that led to a successful short trip to Mexico to
meet with the Mexican president, a restatement of the candidate’s
immigration policies, and unexpected appeals to black, Hispanic
and blue collar voters in the critical rust belt states. This unorthodox
GOP strategy has caused most media analysts and establishment
political consultants to denounce the strategy even as Mr. Trump’s
poll numbers to continue to rise, and the upset GOP winner continues
to dominate the news cycles.

Search This Blog

About Barry Casselman

BARRY CASSELMAN is an author, journalist and lecturer who has reported and analyzed American presidential and national politics since 1972.

He founded, edited and published his first newspaper when he was 29. He has been a contributor to many national publications, including The Weekly Standard, realclearpolitics.com, Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The American Interest, Utne Reader, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, American Experiment Quarterly, Washington Times, The Rothenberg Political Report, Business Today, Election Politics, Business Ethics Magazine, San Francisco Examiner, Washington Insider, and American Commonwealth.

His regular op ed columns and other commentary in print, and on the internet, are distributed through the Preludium News Service. His blog ‘The Prairie Editor” has an international readership and appears on his website at www.barrycasselman.com .

He was a political analyst for WCCO-AM (CBS) for several years, for KSJN-AM (Public Radio International), and for KUOM-AM (National Public Radio). He has also broadcast on RAE in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and beginning in 2000, he produced and broadcast for Voice of America. In 2006, he presented news commentary on LBC, the independent 24-hour news radio network in London, England. He also provided election night analysis in 2006 for Minnesota Public Radio. In 2008, he returned to WCCO-AM for periodic national election commentary. Beginning in 2011, he began weekly commentary on the 2012 presidential campaign on a national radio podcast program originating in Dallas, TX.

Casselman was the original host of “Talk To Your City” on the Minneapolis Television Network, and was a frequent political commentator for KTCA-TV (PBS). In 1992 and 1994, he presented election night analysis for the Conus coast-to-coast All News Channel. In 1996, he provided live coverage from the presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire for All News Channel nationwide. He has also appeared on C-SPAN. In 2008, he was interviewed by ABC-TV Evening News with Charles Gibson.

He has covered national presidential primaries, caucuses and straw polls since 1976, and attended Democratic and Republican national conventions since 1988. He has traveled throughout the United States to report on significant political events, including the national congressional debate in Williamsburg in 1996, the presidential debates, national conventions and events of the Democratic Leadership Council, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, United We Stand America, Reform Party, National Governors Association, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Christian Coalition, CPAC, Green Party and the Independence Party.

In 2012, he was invited to be a civilian participant in the 58th annual seminar on national security at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Also in 2012, he was a speaker at the Jefferson Educational Society's Global Summit IV. At that event, he received the Thomas Hagen "Dignitas" Award for lifetime achievement.

From 1990-2011, he was the executive director of the non-profit International Conference Foundation, and hosted more than 500 world leaders, foreign journalists and other international visitors. At the non-partisan Foundation, he also organized four national symposia: the first on low-income housing with then-HUD Secretary Jack Kemp; the second, a highly-acclaimed conference on “Locating the New Political Center in America” with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and leading spokespersons of the Clinton administration as well as newly-emerged independent groups; the third, a symposium on public communications with then-Governor Tom Ridge, former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, Tony Blankley and other national figures; and in 2003, a symposium on homeland security with Secretary Ridge and leading local and national experts. During this time, he also organized numerous smaller conferences, tours and events for the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of State for its International Visitor Program and its Foreign Press Center programs. In 2008, he organized a special program for international media and visitors attending the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The Foundation also sponsored programs presenting domestic and international authors and their books.

In 2007, Mr. Casselman helped create and plan the nationally-broadcast and podcast dialogue between former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the Cooper Union in New York City, and he continued to work on related debate and public policy discussion projects in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Mr. Casselman has been a lecturer on public policy at Princeton University’s annual international business conferences in New York, and its regional conferences in Chicago since 2005; He also has been a guest lecturer at George Washington University, Carleton College, The Chautauqua (NY) Institution, Gannon University, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Santa Barbara City College, University of St. Thomas, Metropolitan State University, Augsburg College, University of Minnesota, Jefferson Educational Society, and on the international voyages of the Queen Elizabeth 2, Sagafjord, Vistafjord and Royal Viking Sun. He has made presentations on journalism and the arts at Carleton College, University of Minnesota, College of St. Catherine, Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Walker Art Center, Metropolitan State University, Mercyhurst College and the Brazilian Writers Union in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

His non-fiction book North Star Rising was published in 2007 by Pogo Press, an imprint of Finney Company. In 2008, Pogo Press published Minnesota Souvenir, Casselman’s history and visitor guide for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. He was editor and co-author of the book Taking Turns: Political Stalemate or a New Direction in the Race for 2012, a preview of that year's national election.

He has been cited in Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics and in William Safire’s Political Dictionary. Casselman has invented a number of political words and phrases which are now in frequent usage, and listed in various online dictionaries.

He is also a widely-published American poet, short story writer and playwright whose work has been translated and published in Europe, South America and Asia. He is the author of four published books of literary prose and poetry. His work has been frequently anthologized. Two of his plays, in collaboration with composer Randall Davidson, have been performed by the Actors Theater of St. Paul, Minnesota Orchestra, St. Donat’s Ensemble of Wales, and by independent productions at the Union Depot in St. Paul and the Foss Theater at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. He has provided original texts for two award-winning experimental films, as well as texts for other independent short films and videos.

Barry Casselman was born in Erie, Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. with major honors from the University of Pennsylvania and his M.F.A. at the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. He has also studied in Paris, and attended the University of Madrid. He now lives in Minneapolis.